Retrieve the revision history list for a regulation by providing its law ID.
규정 개정 연혁 목록 조회.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| law_id | Yes | LAW_ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | 도구 실행 성공 여부 | |
| data | No | 성공 시 구조화 결과 | |
| tool | Yes | 실행한 도구 이름 | |
| error | No | 실패 시 구조화 오류 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "성공 시 구조화 결과",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "실패 시 구조화 오류",
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "details": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "hint": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "도구 실행 성공 여부",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "description": "실행한 도구 이름",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "tool"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover the main behavioral aspects. The description adds no further behavioral details, but given the annotations provide solid transparency, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of a single clear sentence in Korean. It avoids any unnecessary words or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides the core purpose and the required parameter, but it lacks context about the output format, any sorting or filtering options, or how the history is structured. Given the simplicity of the operation, it is adequate but not highly comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the single parameter 'law_id' with the description 'LAW_ID', which merely repeats the name and gives no additional semantic meaning. The tool description also does not elaborate on the parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the lack of meaningful description prevents a higher score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists regulation amendment history, using the specific verb '조회' (inquiry/list) and resource '규정 개정 연혁' (regulation amendment history). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_rule_content' or 'compare_rule_versions' by focusing on history, though it could be slightly more explicit about what the history contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only states what it does, not when it is appropriate. Since there are multiple similar rule-related tools, explicit usage conditions would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.